U.S. Political Season Begins: 'Morally Coherent' Catholics Can Change this Nation

9/9/2010

(Page 2 of 2)

not. Rights are not ethereal concepts floating around in the cosmos somewhere. Rights are endowed by a Creator not conferred by the State. They are goods of the human person. Our opposition to the judicial manufacture of a "right" to take innocent human life in the womb must never take a back seat to any other concern in the public policy arena. Freedom must be exercised with reference to what is true and good in any just and moral society.

Abortion, in the words of the Venerable John Paul II, is only the "cutting edge of the culture of death." Any time human persons are treated as "products" to be used, aborted, discarded, manipulated, enslaved, traded, made a means rather than an end.. there we find the "culture of death." We must expose, oppose and replace it. Catholics will be judged the most severely if we fail to act. The Biblical adage should echo in our ears, "To those, to whom much is given, much more will be required!"

We are living under what Pope Benedict XVI called a "Dictatorship of Relativism" in the West. The culture stumbles, drunken on the false notion of freedom as giving some people a "right" to kill the innocent, divorced from norms to guide the exercise of human choice and govern our behavior. When there is a wholesale effort to deny the existence of anything objectively true which can be known by all and form the basis of our common life, then there is no real freedom. Instead, we teeter on the brink of anarchy.

Now, let's talk about the two major political parties in the United States. On the predominant human rights issue of our age the leadership of the Democratic Party has lost its soul. One simply cannot be a faithful Catholic and hold what is euphemistically called a "pro-choice" position on abortion. I, like many of my fellow Catholic Americans, grew up equating being Catholic with being a Democrat because I thought Democrats cared more about the poor, the working class, the marginalized and those with no voice. I was wrong. The elite of the Democratic Party have embraced a notion of "freedom" as a power over others and "choice" as a right to do whatever one wants.

The failure to hear the cry of the child in the womb while mouthing the language of caring for the poor is unbridled hypocrisy. Medical science has confirmed what our conscience has always known, that child in the womb is one of us. His or her voice cannot be heard because it is muffled in the once hallowed home of the womb and disregarded by political opportunists. Yes, there may be a few truly Pro-Life Democrats. However, after the experience of the Health Care debate this past year, even this former Democrat is beginning to have my doubts.

However, I hear what I call "political dualism" being touted once again in Republican circles. The idea that there are "social" and "economic" issues and they must be kept separate. Proponents claim we can "only win if we stay focused on the economic issues". Nonsense! The reason we should care about expanding economic opportunity is because we respect the dignity of every human person, including our smallest neighbors. The reason we should want to ensure the application of the principle of subsidiarity to keep government at the lowest level, is because we respect the primacy of the family. We must reject the efforts to divide the "economic" and "social" spheres.

The Republican Party has not fared well on placing in the positive law protection for the Right to Life even though that Right is acknowledged in their platform. They have sometimes fed the stereotype used by their opponents that they care about children only when they are in the womb. Some Republicans seem to favor a "survival of the fittest" approach to the market economy which does not recognize our obligations in human solidarity. Though "big government" solutions have not worked well in the delivery of charity the Republican Party has not talked enough about empowering the mediating associations to deliver that charity.

In the past, some Republicans have decried centralized economic planning as leading to collectivism and warned about the growth of the Federal Government - but then participated in propounding the problem when they were in power. We must not let that happen again. Some espouse a brand of "libertarianism" that cares little about our social obligations to one another. We are our brothers/sisters keepers and Catholics must never forget that. Rejecting big government solutions doesn't mean rejecting our obligation in solidarity. It means building a ground up model of economic opportunity which expands opportunity and participation to all.

Catholics are not one more "interest group" which can be polled, pandered to and bought. Our social obligation is to promote the true common good, not just use the slogan to sound "catholic" as happened in the last political cycle. We need to promote the truth as taught by the Church no matter what it is labeled in the political parlance of the hour. Our political participation must be committed to human life and dignity, marriage and the family, authentic human freedom, and solidarity directed by the application of the principle of subsidiarity. The U.S. Political Season has begun in earnest. 'Morally Coherent' Catholics can change this Nation.

- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords:

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 63 Comments

Cyril
2 years ago
Sorry Peter, that I took so long to respond to your interesting comments. I would like to respond to the items in the order that you have them in your response. I never said that I liked the fact that abortion is the law of the land at present, but I believe that many non-catholics feel that it should be permitted especially in situations where the mother's life is endangered. As for your opinion that my comments about President Obama's comments on abortion in his speech at Notre Dame, I think that the president really would like to see the number of abortions drop. Many people believe that the health care bill as it passed does not provide money for abortion. I am aware that your position about this fact is based on the opinions of the USCCB and other anti-abortion groups, and your own strong opposition to abortion for any reason . I know that the bishops have never really faced a situation where their *wife* has faced such a medical situation or am I sure that you personally have faced such a situation.. My wife and I about a little over a years after we were married (1965) had a situation which was critical. My wife began
to bleed and at first we thought it was her period, but the bleeding continued profusely while we were in New York City. We were not aware that she might be pregnant but we both felt that we should go back home immediately so we could consult with our doctor. Upon examining her he, he immediately sent her to a Catholic Hospital. The next day the bleeding was continuing and the doctors determined that it was important to stop the bleeding so they performed a D/C to stop the bleeding. I must say my first concern was to make sure that my wife survived. Severl days later our doctor asked me if I thought my wife was pregnant. My answer was that we did not think she was pregnant since we associated the bleeding with her period. Fortunately, the doctor did not provide more information, but I later thought that he might have been indicating that she was pregnant. I am glad they did perform the procedure that stopped the bleeding and allowed us to later have a daughter. If nothing would have been done to stop the bleeding she might have died. My final comment about the current legal situation is that abortion is a fact regardless of what you believe. That does not mean that we should not work to stop abortion from being used without serious medical reasons. I will continue to respond to the many points you included in your comment.
Bulbajer
2 years ago
Pete, thanks for the explanation. That clears up a few things for me.
Pete Brady
2 years ago
Bulbajer: correction, it's Act 11:26, "And it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians."
Pete Brady
2 years ago
Bulbajer: Rereading your comment I am compelled to follow up yet again. I don't believe that there would be too much argument against stating that if a person is "baptized in Christ" then they are a "Christian." What they do after that is another story. Jesus asked that 'we be one as He and the Father are one.' Expecting unity of belief, much less thought, in mankind is asking a lot. Yet that is exactly what Christ expects and wants regarding His Church. But from her earliest days the Catholic Church has been beset by heresies. A list follows. DOCETISM - belief that Jesus only "seemed" to become man, suffer, and die. GNOSTICISM - a widespread intellectual elitism holding a "secret" and "pseudo-mystical" knowledge of Christianity. MARCIONISM - held that Christianity should completely reject the heritage of Judaism. MONTANISM - its founder, Montanus, claimed to be a prophet whose revelations superseded the teachings of the Church. DONATISM - taught that some sins could not be forgiven. SABELLIANISM - denial of the Trinity. MANICHEANISM - gnostic combination of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Buddhism. ARIANISM - Christ was not God. NESTORIANISM - parsing out the divine and human natures of Jesus. MONOPHYSITISM - denied the human nature of Jesus. MONOTHELITISM - Jesus did not have a human will but only a divine will. PELAGIANISM - denial of original sin. For most of those early heresies there was more to them but you get the idea. Were they all Christian? Belief in Jesus Christ as "Savior" would say to a certain extent 'yes.' But the authority to say definitively "what is and what isn't" rests in the Church, and more specifically with the Magisterium. The product of that authority, describing what must believed with the assent of faith, is the Nicene Creed. If I were to be rigorous, I would say that in order to thoroughly call oneself a "Christian" one must firmly adhere to it, the Nicene Creed. Are non-Catholic Christians "Christians?" I would say 'yes, but.' The "but" is this, why settle for only part of the truth when the complete truth is there to be had? Only the Catholic Church speaks with the authority of its founder, Jesus Christ, who said that He 'would be with it always.' In a sense those who believe in Jesus as God and Savior are "Catholic." Here again, though, there is a 'but.' Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law says, "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." Jesus Christ taught with authority (Mk 1:22) and gave that authority to His Church, the "one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" Church (Mt 16:18-19), with its visible head in the Holy Father in Rome. Therein lies the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Pete Brady
2 years ago
Bulbajer: Allow me to follow up. As I believe it addresses both what it means to be a "Christian" and a "morally coherent" witness to the truth in this "political season" it might be appropriate to quote at a little more length the Gospel reference from John that I gave: "And I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one even as we are. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou hast given me I guarded; and not one of them perished except the son of perdition, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, in order that they may have my joy made full in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou take them out of the world, but that thou keep them from evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. Even as thou hast sent me into the world, so I also have sent them into the world. And for them I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. // Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me, that all may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory that thou hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them and thou in me; that they may be perfected in unity, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast loved them even as thou hast loved me" (Jn 17:11-23).
Pete Brady
2 years ago
Bulbajer: To whom was Christ referring when He used the word "church?" I believe the answer is to be found in the Gospel of John: "that all may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (Jn 17:21). The events affecting the early "Christian" church are described in Acts, which records: "And it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians" (Acts 1:26). According to "Catholic Answers," St. Ignatius of Antioch (died about 67 A.D.) was one of the first to use the word "Catholic" --- "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
Bulbajer
2 years ago
Pete, I'm sorry, I should have made myself clear. I meant, is it possible that Jesus was referring to the Christian church as a whole (in other words, all Christians)? I remember now that the Church is referred to as "the one true church", but at the same time I've seen many Catholics on this site use the term "Christian church" to describe all the various Christian denominations. I'm not saying I believe that Jesus wasn't talking about the Catholic Church, but I do believe that non-Catholic Christians are indeed Christians.
Pete Brady
2 years ago
Cyril: Abortion, legal?!? You're right, I DON'T like it. And neither should you. What an inane thing for you to reference - Obama "hoped that the passage of the health bill would provide funds for many of the women who elect to have abortions so that they would not need to take that path." Oh, gee, let me interpret - making money available for abortions will mean that fewer women will have abortions. Duh, NOT! A totally illogical non sequitur. Buddy, my comments are backed up by the Church's teachings and the TRUTH. The Catholic Church is a contradiction to the world. Ask yourself if the views you present, a)"contradict," or b)"conform" to the world? If you accept "abortion" as a "legal fact" then I put you squarely in the "conform" mode, and consequently weak in your Catholicity. And, gee, this website, and I along with it, say "abortion" is morally and "legally" wrong, therefore that makes everything we present "Republican." How parochial of you. (But it does mean that you are tacitly admitting what the Democratic party stands for.) So, let me give you one of my "empty of any real thought" references on the many "liberal" viewpoints, such as yours, that are presented in many of the comments on this forum. Pope Leo XIII in his 1888 encyclical, "Human Liberty," had this to say about "liberals" - "But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, 'I will not serve'; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves "Liberals." As for your obfuscation about your statement, "Jesus... did not create the Catholic Church," only God "creates," therefore, despite the fact that Jesus was "of the Jewish faith," He did "create" and "establish" His Church. His followers, who became known as "Christians" brought it forward in the world in accordance with what they had been "taught" by Him. They, however, DID NOT CREATE the Catholic Church. I am very familiar with the history of the Catholic Church, so present your "current historical research," I stand ready to refute whatever you may falsely assert. Finally, while I am firmly aligned with "natural law," no, I indeed meant "common law." And here is that to which I was referring; Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Common Law of England" which was recommended to the U.S. Congress by James Madison, and adopted by that body, as its primer on the formulation of U.S. law. In it you will find in its first chapter a delineation of the "absolute rights of individuals," the right of personal security, LIFE, being the first. On that "right" Blackstone said, "Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb...An infant "in ventre sa mere," or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitations as if it were then actually born." Got that?, "as if it were then ACTUALLY BORN!" That's the description of a "person." The same as when Jesus Christ was a "person" in the womb of His mother, Mary. I make no "judgments." What I have done is to present the objective Catholic truth. To the "liberal," however, this is "judging" or being "hateful." Poppycock. So you don't like the "litmus test" of "abortion" for being Catholic, right? Is the Apostle's Creed enough of a litmus test for you? 'Cause here's what those "imperfect" men, the Apostles, had to say in their "Didache" [ca. A. D. 140], "You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication... You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child." THAT IS THE LITMUS TEST. And where is Obama and the Democratic Party? Squarely in opposition to it. Choose! Be "Catholic." Or be "Lucifer" and "liberal."
Pete Brady
2 years ago
Bulbajer: You ask, "possible that Jesus was referring to the Christian Church?" Gee, I don't know, what do you think? Did he say "synagogue?" Nope, my Bible says "church." Are we now going to dispute the very origin of the Catholic Church? That Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church, and that Pope Benedict is THE successor down the centuries from St. Peter as the visible Head of that "church" established by Jesus Christ? 'Cause if we are then I have some very serious reservations about those who would call themselves "Catholic" and yet question these dogmas of faith.
Cyril
2 years ago
Peter your are again making judgements about what I have said about abortion. I disagree with you and the other conservtive catholic republicans about President Obama position on abortion. He stated in his speech at Notre Dame last spring that he hoped that the passage of the health bill would provide funds for many of the women who elect to have abortions so that they would not need to take that path. Whether you like it or not the law now permits abortion and the anti-abortion people have not been able to eliminate it from the country. Remember it was illegal before "Roe vs Wade" but abortions were being performed by illegal means and often times both the mother and the baby would die. Unfortunately, I believe that your comment are empty of any real thought, but just following the conservative catholic republican point of view. I assume that you are referring to "Natural Law" as the Deacon so oftern reminds us, instead of " common law." My reference to "humans creating the Catholic Church is based current historical research about the Church in the years after Christ death and resurrection. Through the years since Constantine made the Catholic Church the state religion of the Roman Empire there have been many holy leaders as well as some not so holy. I am sure no matter what I might say you will disagree with me , so whether you like it of not I will continue to pray for you and the Catholic church and my own soul.

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment